Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39029784›Full record

Trial reportChest2024

Gravity- vs Wall Suction-Driven Large-Volume Thoracentesis: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Samira Shojaee, Jasleen Pannu, Lonny Yarmus, Alberto Fantin, Christina MacRosty, Roland Bassett, Labib Debiane, Zachary S DePew, Saadia A Faiz, Carlos A Jimenez and 37 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Chest, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05131945 (GRAvity- Versus Wall Suction-drIven Large Volume Thoracentesis), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05131945 nacompletednot on this map

GRAvity- Versus Wall Suction-drIven Large Volume Thoracentesis: a RAndomized Controlled Study (GRAWITAS Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorM.D. Anderson Cancer CenterRan2018 to 2024Enrolled79ConditionsThoracentesis, Pleural Effusions, Chronic, Pulmonary EdemaArmsStandard Suction Thoracentesis, Gravity Thoracentesis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

47 authors.

Samira ShojaeeDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Jasleen PannuDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH.
Lonny YarmusDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Alberto FantinAzienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Christina MacRostyMcKenzie Pulmonary Care Center, McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, Springfield, OR.
Roland BassettBiostatistics Department, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Labib DebianeDepartment of Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Zachary S DePewDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE.
Saadia A FaizDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Carlos A JimenezDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Sameer K AvasaralaUniversity Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH.
Erik VakilUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Andrew DeMaioDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Lara BashouraDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Keerthana KeshavaNew York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY.
Travis FergusonDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Roberto AdachiDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
George A EapenDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
David E OstDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Sami BashourDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Asad KhanDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Vickie ShannonDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Ajay SheshadriDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Roberto F CasalDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Scott E EvansDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Krystle PewDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Nadia CastaldoAzienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Diwakar D BalachandranDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Vincenzo PatrunoAzienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Robert LentzDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Cheryl PaiDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Fabien MaldonadoDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Lance RollerDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Junsheng MaBiostatistics Department, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Jhankruti ZaveriDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Jenna LosDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Luis VaqueroDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Eva OrdonezDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Gulmira YermakhanovaDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Jason AkulianDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Cole BurksDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Roel-Rolando AlmarioDepartment of Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Marie SauveDepartment of Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Jackson PetteeDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Laila Z NoorDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Muhammad H ArainDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Horiana B GrosuDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: hbgrosu@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Inducible epithelial resistance: a program investigating mechanisms to protect against acute and chronic complications of pneumoniaR35HL144805 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI EVANS, SCOTT E. · 2019 to 2025
$6.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS R35 HL144805
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrior studies have found no differences in procedural chest discomfort for patients undergoing manual syringe aspiration or drainage with gravity after thoracentesis. However, whether gravity drainage could protect against chest pain due to the larger negative-pressure gradient generated by wall suction has not been investigated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does wall suction drainage result in more chest discomfort compared with gravity drainage in patients undergoing large-volume thoracentesis? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsIn this multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with large free-flowing effusions of ≥ 500 mL were assigned at a 1:1 ratio to wall suction or gravity drainage. Wall suction was performed with a suction system attached to the suction tubing and with vacuum pressure adjusted to full vacuum. Gravity drainage was performed with a drainage bag placed 100 cm below the catheter insertion site and connected via straight tubing. Patients rated chest discomfort on a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after drainage. The primary outcome was postprocedural chest discomfort at 5 minutes. Secondary outcomes included measures of postprocedure chest discomfort, breathlessness, procedure time, volume of fluid drained, and complication rates.

resultsOf the 228 patients initially randomized, 221 were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome of procedural chest discomfort did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .08), nor did the secondary outcomes of postprocedural discomfort and dyspnea. Similar volumes were drained in both groups, but the procedure duration was longer in the gravity arm by approximately 3 minutes. No differences in rate of pneumothorax or reexpansion pulmonary edema were noted between the two groups.

interpretationThoracentesis via wall suction and gravity drainage results in similar levels of procedural discomfort and dyspnea improvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05131945; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Indexed as

GravitationThoracentesisAgedChest PainDrainageFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPleural EffusionSingle-Blind MethodSuctioncomplicationspleural effusionsuctionthoracentesis

Identifiers

PMID39029784
PMCPMC11806342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.